Property rights and payment to patients for cell lines derived from human tissues: an economic analysis

Revised Common Rule Changes to the Consent Process and Consent Form

Background: The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects-the Common Rule-was revised in 2017 to reduce administrative burdens for low-risk research while enhancing protections for human subjects enrolled in greater-than-minimal-risk trials. These enhanced protections involve changes to the consent process. Methods: We review the general requirements applicable to the consent process, as well as the additional elements of consent mandated by the revisions to the Common Rule. The regulations apply to federally funded studies and are optional for non-federally funded studies. Results: Two new general requirements for the consent process, one basic required element for the consent form, and three optional additional elements for the consent form were added in an effort to improve potential subjects' understanding of research studies and to facilitate the exchange of information between the research staff and potential subjects. Important information about the study should be extracted into a concise key information section to help potential subjects make informed decisions regarding participation. Conclusion: The revisions to the Common Rule are intended to enhance human subject protection by providing more information in an understandable form during the consent process. The new consent elements aim to increase transparency and help improve clarity.

Who owns the child in hospital? A preliminary discussion

AIM

To 'own' a person is considered an infringement of human rights, but we suggest that concepts of ownership influence interactions between parents and staff when a child is admitted to hospital. This paper aims to stimulate debate and contains an explanation of the exploration of the literature for research and discussion of ownership of the child.

METHOD

A wide variety of library indexes, databases and populist media were examined although it was impossible to examine all literature which may have contained references to this topic, and, apart from databases which contained abstracts in English, we could not include literature written in any language other than English, Swedish, and Icelandic.

FINDINGS

We found no research that examines how concepts of ownership of a child affects communication between health professionals and parents and, ultimately, the delivery of health care. This paper begins discussion on the issues.

DISCUSSION

Historical literature shows that ownership of humans has been a part of many cultures, and parents were once considered to own their children. Ownership of another has legal connotations, for instance in guardianship struggles of children during marriage breakup and in ethical debates over surrogacy and products of assisted conception. Within health care, it becomes a contentious issue in transplantation of body parts, in discourse on autonomy and informed consent, and for religious groups who refuse blood transfusions. In health care, models such as family centred care and partnership in care depend on positive communication between parents and staff. If a hospital staff member feels that he/she owns a child for whom he/she is caring, then conflict between the staff member and the parents over who has the 'best interests of the child' at heart is possible.

CONCLUSION

We encourage debate about concepts of who owns the hospitalized child - the parents or the staff? Should it be argued at all? Is the whole concept of ownership of another, be it adult or child, the ethical antithesis to modern beliefs about human rights? Comment on this issue is invited.